Effects of electrical muscle stimulation on core muscle activation and physical performance in non-athletic adults: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) activates muscles through electrical currents, resulting in involuntary muscle contractions. This study aimed to evaluate the immediate clinical effects of superimposing EMS on strength training compared with conventional exercise in healthy non-athletic adults. METHODS: This study was a randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial conducted at a single centre. Forty-one healthy young volunteers were recruited and randomised into two groups: strengthening with superimposed EMS (S+E) and strengthening (S) groups. All participants underwent the 30 minutes of strength training program, three times a week for 8 weeks, consisting of core muscle exercises. Additionally, the S+E group received EMS during training, which stimulated the bilateral abdominal, gluteus, and hip adductor muscles. As the primary outcome measure, we evaluated the changes in muscle thickness, including the abdominal, gluteal, and hip adductor muscles, using ultrasound. Muscle thickness was measured in both resting and contracted states. For secondary outcomes, physical performance (Functional Movement System score, McGill's core stability test, and hip muscle power) and body composition analysis were evaluated. All assessments were performed at the beginning and end of the intervention. RESULTS: 39 participants (S+E group = 20, S group = 19) completed the study. The clinical characteristics and baseline functional status of each group did not differ significantly between the groups. After completion of the training, the S+E group showed more efficient contraction in most of the evaluated muscles. The resting muscle thickness did not differ significantly between the groups; however, the contracted muscle thickness in the S+E group was higher than that in the S group (p < 0.05). Physical performance and body composition were not significantly different between the two groups. No intervention-related complications were reported during the study. CONCLUSION: EMS seems to be a safe and reasonable modality for improving physical fitness in healthy individuals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".